Mini 1266 - My iTunes Mafia - GAME OVER

[J]

@Noramp: Nope, no one has really answered me on the Sken case.

Slandaar, what do you wonder about me?

[Noramp]

The votes are not telling it but the main subject here is Sken.

Why do you believe Sken is the main subject beyond meta reasons since you seem to not like using meta

[evilpacman18]

uh.. Pacman. You never prodded me. Who did you end up prodding instead?

I actually wrote that I was gonna prod you and then forgot, closed my computer, and went and played piano for 8 hours. I didn't prod FightingShadow either but I will now.

[Slandaar]

Slandaar, what do you wonder about me?

Who your favourite band is!

Your alignment.

I think you are townish, but I am not too convinced.

[Slandaar]

@Sken: what is your read of me? and why.

[J]

Wow I have the exact same opinion of you too Slandaar.

[Slandaar]

It is hard to get solid reads when half the players are not contributing much...

[don_johnson]

sorry, spent yesterday crippled with a hangover. i'll backtrack to where i last checked in and catch up. i did notice people calling for the skenvoy case, reasons for my original vote, etc. this is puzzling. i thought it was pretty damn obvious. but i am fine with a call for specifics if thats what these requests are. FoS on anyone pretending to not understand it though. i clearly spelled out the basics in earlier posts. though i can't promise where i'll end up after this catch up, it seems imo that subsequent votes/cases have been more "distractions" than tremendously productive scumhunting. but i will try to have an open mind.

in any case:

No. It's not that he didn't recognize the gender of a player. It's that he accused me because I recognized the gender of a player which was clearly visible on every one of her posts.

meh. this was a very small part of what i posted and was something i included as a side note. to me it just added to the sken/painted connection. i never focused on this as a daming point, it is just a small piece of a larger puzzle i felt existed at the time(and as yet, still do). may be some people pay attention more to gender than i do, and not to be sexist, but i find males in the majority of my gamnes and so will often default to he/his/him until it is pointed out to me that i am talking with a woman. but whatevz. arguying the weakest point of a case against you is borderline strawman. its really unecessary unless it makes you uncomfrotable. so why would it make you uncomfortable enough to focus on it? i could understand if the case was based on such a minor detail, but ignoring the crux of the argument(your explicit defense of a player) and focusing on a minor detail is lame.

Are you kidding? I explained clearly in great detail why almost everything he said was completely wrong or a non sequitur. The one thing I qualified was that DV's "fishing" post ended up being useful. If you're still confused please ask more specifically.

i would rather not pbpa the original post in question as i feel it would be wasteful. if someone needs me to, just say it. otherwise i will just point out that this is complete bs. you showed nothing in that post. as i recall, you said i was "scummy or vi" and then proceeded to summarize my actions and agree with some things and never really point out any sort of scum motivation for my other actions. but whatevz.

As far as the reasoning against me, there hasn't been much given, and what has been given is based on false premises or misunderstandings (not understanding what happened with Sken; not understanding how the chainsaw defense works; thinking there's something fishy about me actively trying to fish out scum by asking for reasons; and so forth)

i understand what happened with sken. they reacted poorly to a pressure vote, when the wagon grew, you jumped in to defend them. you did this by attacking sken's attackers(which is the definition of chainsaw defense), not sure what you mean about the "fishing for reasons" part, but i'm pretty sure you called someone scummy for "fishing", and then did it yourself.

81 sums things up nicely. slandaar is a big town read for me atm.

83 is more "i really don't get it" from painted. this kind of ignorasnce, again looks tough to feign. i will reiterate, painted is more likely scum if sken flips scum. as a stand alone case, painted reads more like VI. the logic fails are incredible and painted seems to enjoy trying to compare apples to oranges and then trying to convince us that they are all apples.

84 is painted showing a lack of understanding again. they seem convinced that the original sken vote by deas was poor, which again, has not been the case at all. also, painted talks about:

This seems like a strategy scum might use: make poorly reasoned attacks on someone randomly, and then start a wagon on whoever calls you on the attacks, arguing they were "defending" the first person.

i don't think anyone has attacked painted, have they? the focus has been on sken, with a strong "buddying" suggestion between sken and painted for the protracted defense. another apples to oranges type of moment. painted finished this post with the old "well what about the lurkers" type comment. common scum tactic. i don't like it when people try and call out inactivity early in a game. its kind of like "well, i know i'm suspicious, but what about all those people." it always looks like an attempt to get the heat off of yourself.

86: thank you monk. if sken flips town this is the most likely to be a scum vote. certainly doesn't look like a bus, so this gives me a good take on monk dependent on sken's flip. it does look like sken has been slipping under the radar and letting her white knight take the heat.

slandaar again is correct and logical in 89, 90, 91.

skenvoy 93: my original attacker and the player i know in real life is town. "painted, stop defending me."

In this post, PFoD basically repeats my earlier argument that scum are probably lying low, but the way he says it reeks of getting attention off himself (and me) - I don't like the way it's posted.

where is your vote at at this point?

post ends with baseless statements and wifom. so basically, no scumhunting except to call out painted(who is making you both look bad), and no vote, FoS... nothing.

metabot 94 reads like a scumbuddy to sken/painted. avoids the crux of the argument. states it is a catch up post, but looks more like he read 2 pages.

post 95. why is sken's vote on J? why is painted on deas?

J 97: why is painted scum? why is monk a good "push"?

Don, why is your vote on skenvoy when you said that my initial reason for voting her wasn't that strong and your summary post seemed to indicate you were more suspicious of Painted.

this was already explained earlier.

i think my suspicion of painted more or less relies on a skenvoy scumflip.

^^ its in iso 4(post 110).

Your posts seem to depend on what everyone else thinks rather than what you think yourself, as if you have no opinion? Firstly, you never actually properly explained why Skenvoy deserved the attention. Secondly, how can we push interaction out of them, if you're saying that this is the plan?

meh. i don't have an issue with monk unless sken flips town. it is obvious imo, why sken needs attention, and monk is using his vote to push that interaction.

sken 99 is odd. only because it took so long for sken to come out and state that he didn't like painteds defense. am i wrong on this? it seemed like sken kept quiet about the defense until it became a major pressure point.

sken 101: "lets check out the lurkers." i find painted suspicious, but not enough to move my rvs vote from J over to him. scummy.

104 is gold. i less than three slandaar.

105: i am painted and i am completely unable to focus on the argument at hand, so i will continue to argue irrelevant points.

I'm leaning towards Skenvoy as scum now. I still suspect DV and I'm going to wait and see what responses I get before changing my vote. And still nothing from DJ after his one long scummy post.

RFOL! get a room you two.

While this is possible, you forget to point out in your theory that she could have received another active role, on town's side, and wanting to stay in because of it? It seems you are only focusing on her possible scum role.

hm. don't like this. why would focus on outing a town role? its called "scumhunting". not "townhunting". but whatevz.

Don, why do you think that skenvoy is scum?

a) poor reaction to an end of RVS vote.
b) delayed reaction to protracted defense by painted.
c) lack of scumhunting. riding that RVS vote and calling out lurkers.

^^ pretty much sums it up. if its still not clear, let me know.

112: sken finally votes painted. i prefer to see people use their vote at early signs of suspicion. its kind of like sken had to be pushed into this one. but we'll see. especially odd since just moments earlier he was talking about not letting quieter players slide. this does nothing to achieve the goal of calling others out.

guttersnipe: good vote. only suspect if sken flips town.

J makes no sense here. i don't see any town read here. this post is really trying to derail the wagon.

You go the entire post saying stuff about how Sken is the person of interest, addresse a few odd posts but don't do much of anything with them.

so, in your opinion, sken is town. sken's wagon is growing. scum fennin then votes to avoid this wagon? hm. i see maybe where you're going. but again, this is a vote which seems to serve more as a distraction than an actual case. i don't see the whole "metabot word contortion" thing. meh.

Her points are a bit waffly but it is more of a town intent than a scum-intent especially with the way she has been responding to the pressure on her and the way she has approached the PFoD wagon. I don't see much scum-intent from her posts but an almost bellicose amount of town-intent.

waffling isn't really a town tell in my book. confusion, maybe. but not waffling. especially in the manner in which sken has done it. accepting the defense complacently at first. calling it out when it comes into question from others, but not voting it. calling out lurkers, but not voting any of them. then calling out lurkers again, and voting her white knight who is probablyu at that time the second leading wagon to her own. i don't see much town intent here. i see her protecting both herself and painted(as long as she could without accumulating more suspicion).

J is starting to look like scum defending town. i.e. sken town flip points to J exhibiting behavior i discussed earlier when differentiating between scum defending scum and scum defending town.

sken: please give me your thoughts on this. you haven't exhibited very "townie" behavior as some of us have pointed out, but J claims a strong town read on you. your wagon has built to early critical mass imo, and it looks to me like if you are town, J could be buying town points by defending the day 1 mislynch. thoughts?

I don't think DJ is that low considering I have found monk and painted to be very scummy in their posts. I couldn't understand DJ's vote for Skenvoy, which is why he's so high.

my original vote? or why my vote is still there? is it clear now?

I actually think painted replied to this a while back, but I didn't go back and check it at the time. What is interesting to me is that Deasveil has been referring to me by the correct gender as well (and knows me a hell of a lot better than painted, which I think is obvious from our posts), but DJ didn't (and hasn't) mentioned it at all. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.

yes. let's go back and focus on a minor detail included in the original post. guess what? you deas weren't acting like scumbuddies at the time. you and painted were practically holding hands. the "gender" connection was a small detail which bolstered a larger, more obvious connection based on gameplay. double standard occurs when static laws are applied to similar circumstances. the relationships between the three of you were different.

slandaar 155. following my train of thought. again. if you are scum, you are a mastermind.

159: agreed. why my vote remains on sken. i think its a good lynch atm.

They are all possible, agreed, but I think sken town painted scum is unlikely, your view is interesting, I was thinking more along the lines of 'why bother defending someone who is town who is being accused of being scum if you are scum' it also draws unneeded attention to painted, which obviously is not ideal for scum.

especially in the early game. i do see scum defend town, but it is often towards the end of a wagon when there is little to no hope of stopping the lynch.

haha. slandaar 163. this is getting creepy. get out of my head!

Why is "crying out lurkers" on page 5 odd?

^^ this question may have been for me. i think i answered it earlier. i don't think its far enough into a game to call out lurkers and i find it is generally a scum tactic to shift focus off whatever the focus is on. its a distraction. smoke screen, what have you. nothing hugely definitive, as it is townish to want to get players to participate, but i prefer these types of call-outs to be accompanied with some sort of solution to the problem as well. maybe a list of questions. maybe a vote on the lurker, etc.

so. there it is. any questions?

[evilpacman18]

monk has requested replacement. Working on it.

[Slandaar]

Dons town.

Pretty much all I have to say about that post.

[Slandaar]

Metabot, why do you trust J on his reads? Do you have a particularly strong town read on him - if not, why follow him?

I will give credit where its due, I had thought that odd also.

[Fennin]

Your reasoning against Metabot is ick ick ick to me. You are voting him for a word contortion you created by putting words into his mouth in an almost joking matter. You go the entire post saying stuff about how Sken is the person of interest, addresse a few odd posts but don't do much of anything with them. You also say that you would like to hear more from Metabot.....where are the questions to help that? It seems counter-productive to say you want more from him but just leave it at that. What exactly do you wanna hear from him? I don't like that little stick it to him you did based on "Since you are not on V/LA you should answer me."

I'm putting on vote down on Metabot to attract attention. I found the bolded part of my previous Metabot's quote suspicious, nothing more. Well at least Metabot understood that :

Fair enough. Voteprods will get my attention.

UNVOTE: Metabot

I've got null on Fennin at the moment, but Fennin, why was Skenvoy the main subject?

Why do you believe Sken is the main subject beyond meta reasons since you seem to not like using meta

Answering both questions at the same time : Right after the RVS there was a debate about Skenvoy outing for this game but then staying, followed by a theory that she could be scum because she had said that she'd like to be scum in a future game due to always being town and that this may have motivated her to stay. She commented on that and I just answered this quote :

You guys are arguing over whether Sken and Painted are buddies and focusing on Painted,

meanwhile Sken is not getting the attention she deserves.

hm. don't like this. why would focus on outing a town role? its called "scumhunting". not "townhunting". but whatevz.

You got it wrong. Read the first pages again, about the theory that Sken could be scum. I simply stated that it wasn't a solid theory because she could also have been motivated to stay in the game due to another role than scum. Nothing more to add to this.

[DeasVail]

Thank you DJ It is clear now.

No point having my vote on monk now and after a re-read I've decided I think painted is most likely to be scum, so:

Unvote: Monk
Vote: Painted Face of Death

[Slandaar]

Fennin might be scum, hmmm.

[Slandaar]

DV can you explain why you think painted ?

[Painted Face of Death]

You can actually see Painted coming to Skenvoys aid like 3 times subtly, there looks like a link there

(Post 34)

@Painted Why did you not address this relatively serious accusation when it first arose but are now defending it tooth and nail?

I've addressed it over and over again, by saying that I thought the way DV went after Sken seemed scummy (for reasons I've explained). Even if they are both scum, the way DV posted seemed scummy. So I wasn't defending Sken, I was saying that either way DV's attack was illogical and that I suspected DV.

I'm putting my vote on Painted because I'm sick of him defending me when I've asked him to stop. Added to that, the fact that he's saying he didn't.

Just curious why this bothers you so much and why you're reacting so defensively to it. DV attacked you and I suspected DV; this isn't really about you. Unless you and DV are both scum and you don't want me going after him?

*Point to those saying they don't like defending people*

I will defend people I believe are town and not push their lynch and the like because town does work as a collective team to find scum. Also based on interactions with other players, even defending, you can find scum through that. Plus idk, I just have just as much fun defending as I do prosecuting those I believe are scum. *shrug* I don't see a problem with it in my year of playing mafia.

Agree completely. I don't have a problem defending someone I think is town. But if I don't think someone is town, it's annoying to be told I'm "defending" them when I'm instead attacking someone else.

By trying to find flaws in my logic for why I have a

town

read on you makes me love you as town.

This is a bit WIFOMy of course, but that actually reads as a scum indicator to me. It's a transparent attempt to seem fair and reasonable.. trying a little too hard to seem town.

I was rereading, and this stood out to me:

sken signed up. wanted out. pms were distributed. sken wanted in. is there something wrong with the timeline here? cause it makes perfect sense to me. dumb reason for a vote, but a reason nonetheless. deas is not the one making a big deal out of it. in fact, his vote post was rather subdued. the reaction to it is what has been overblown. i don't see deas "sneakily" implying anything. i think his posting is up front.

also, paint seems to be referring to sken as "she". maybe i missed the gender tag, but paint certainly seems familiar with the maiden he's whiteknighting atm.

I actually think painted replied to this a while back, but I didn't go back and check it at the time. What is interesting to me is that Deasveil has been referring to me by the correct gender as well (and knows me a hell of a lot better than painted, which I think is obvious from our posts), but DJ didn't (and hasn't) mentioned it at all. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Yup. This was an incredibly scummy thing to say because of the "maiden" and "whiteknighting" rhetoric, and because your gender tag is clearly visible, not to mention the point about DV.

I have a lot more to say about DJ in my next post, coming right up...

[Skenvoy]

Slandaar, I have a question - if you think Painted and I are both scum, why did you vote me instead of him? You've told us your reasons for thinking we're both scum, but not specifically why you voted for who you did.

At the moment, I have a town read on you - you've been contributing well, and your points are logical.

Your reads at the moment, I assume, are based around the suspicion that I'm scum. If I'm lynched and flip town, how would they change?

[Skenvoy]

Okay, um, apparently I am allowed to play in the newbie game after all...

It appears that the limit is one

newbie

game at a time? Anyway, just putting it out there before someone else uses it to say "OMG SCUM".

[Painted Face of Death]

Just to remove the suspense...

Unvote

Vote: don_johnson

I had already thought that other long post of his was scummy, and his most recent one is even more so. So currently, I think he's the most likely to be scum. More detail below. But first, let me address a couple things.

To clarify, the reason I'm wary is because I'm confident in my town read(s) at the moment, and I think the people who would get the reads right most often would be scum (obviously, as they actually know who town are). Therefore, I'm uncertain about anyone who's town reads coincide with mine a lot.

I dont think a townie can think this.

now, this actually makes no sense you are confident your reads are correct but think scum get reads right most often? UNLESS you take into account sken knows her reads are correct. (she is scum)

->

My reads are correct
'I am confident my reads are correct', 'I think scum get reads right most often', 'I am uncertain when peoples reads agree with mine'

makes more sense than:

I am a townie who has genuine reads.
'I am confident my reads are correct', 'I think scum get reads right most often', 'I am uncertain when peoples reads agree with mine'... like this literally makes no sense to me.

No, it makes sense, it's just a little arrogant. If you think that your reading ability is way better than the other townies, you should logically suspect anyone who agrees with you too much. If you think that it's possible that other townies are just as good at detecting scum as you are, then there's no reason to suspect someone who has the same reads as you: they could have gotten them the same way you did.

I think that all painted/sken combinations are quite possible.
I actually feel that Painted is most likely to be scum at the moment because of lots of things, including how weird his attack of me was, which I still don't understand. I just struggle to believe that he actually thinks anything he says.

I do, of course. I'm trying to figure out who the Mafia are. You might not agree with me or understand my arguments, but why would you think I don't actually believe what I say? This is somewhat of an underhanded attack on me. I'm happy to clear up anything specific that confuses you, though I'm not going to repeat the whole argument because I've spelled it out already. Go ahead and ask specific questions if you'd like.

I actually feel that Painted is most likely to be scum at the moment because of lots of things, including how weird his attack of me was, which I still don't understand. I just struggle to believe that he actually thinks anything he says.

I actually can see his attack on you as town after his explanation, but I find his other defences terrible. the thing is; terrible doesn't nescessarily mean scum and it is close if its terrible town logic or scum logic imo. I am leaning scum.

I think my logic is pretty good. If you have a specific objection please let me know and I'll clear up whatever logic or ambiguities are confusing you.

---

Now, I'm going to go through DJ's most recent post and respond. As well as my response, I've also explained why I think he's scummy based on what he wrote.

No. It's not that he didn't recognize the gender of a player. It's that he accused me because I recognized the gender of a player which was clearly visible on every one of her posts.

meh. this was a very small part of what i posted and was something i included as a side note. to me it just added to the sken/painted connection. i never focused on this as a daming point, it is just a small piece of a larger puzzle i felt existed at the time(and as yet, still do). may be some people pay attention more to gender than i do, and not to be sexist, but i find males in the majority of my gamnes and so will often default to he/his/him until it is pointed out to me that i am talking with a woman. but whatevz. arguying the weakest point of a case against you is borderline strawman. its really unecessary unless it makes you uncomfrotable. so why would it make you uncomfortable enough to focus on it? i could understand if the case was based on such a minor detail, but ignoring the crux of the argument(your explicit defense of a player) and focusing on a minor detail is lame.

Response: I certainly didn't ignore the rest of the argument, but I did address this point because it pretty strongly pointed to DJ being Mafia. As I already explained, use of the rhetoric and underhanded accusations about me being familiar with the "maiden" I'm "whiteknighting" is really scummy. Especially when a) Sken's gender tag was clearly visible and b) DJ still hasn't acknowledged point a and admitted that there was nothing suspicious about my use of "her."

Why this is scummy: DJ is portraying me as only focusing on a minor detail, ignoring the rest of my argument. DJ is also acting as if my comments on this point were intended to argue against his case against me, rather than to point out why he's scummy.

Are you kidding? I explained clearly in great detail why almost everything he said was completely wrong or a non sequitur. The one thing I qualified was that DV's "fishing" post ended up being useful. If you're still confused please ask more specifically.

i would rather not pbpa the original post in question as i feel it would be wasteful. if someone needs me to, just say it. otherwise i will just point out that this is complete bs. you showed nothing in that post. as i recall, you said i was "scummy or vi" and then proceeded to summarize my actions and agree with some things and never really point out any sort of scum motivation for my other actions. but whatevz.

Response: I don't know what PBPA means. Assuming it means go over the post again, I doubt it will change my opinion at this point. I'd rather you look back at my early original posts and try to understand them. Half of your post was saying you didn't understand various points. And you or others may disagree with some of the arguments in my response, but I certainly did a lot more than just summarize and agree. I've now decided you're much more likely to be scum than VI.

Why this is scummy: Mischaracterizing my response as if it was in general agreeing with DJ, and completely ignoring/discounting the arguments I made in response to DJ's post rather than actually addressing them. Also, the 'whatevz' is pretty hostile and annoying, not that only scum do that, but at this point it just appears that DJ is trying to irritate, confuse, mischaracterize, and stir up trouble, rather than actually help the town find scum.

As far as the reasoning against me, there hasn't been much given, and what has been given is based on false premises or misunderstandings (not understanding what happened with Sken; not understanding how the chainsaw defense works; thinking there's something fishy about me actively trying to fish out scum by asking for reasons; and so forth)

i understand what happened with sken. they reacted poorly to a pressure vote, when the wagon grew, you jumped in to defend them. you did this by attacking sken's attackers(which is the definition of chainsaw defense), not sure what you mean about the "fishing for reasons" part, but i'm pretty sure you called someone scummy for "fishing", and then did it yourself.

Response: Whew, there's a lot here. I've already addressed the confusion about the chainsaw defense: there's a big difference between attacking an attacker cause he seems like scum, and attacking an attacker as a way of defending someone else. To explain my point about reasons, this was a reference to an early post where I asked Slandaar to explain a post where he just quoted Sken and then voted. I thought it was suspicious not to provide an explanation and I asked him to do so. Granted fishing for a response can sometimes be a useful tactic, but in that particular instance I thought the way Slandaar did it was strange. I'm not sure what DJ means about me doing it myself: an example would be helpful.

Why this is scummy: Mischaracterizing the chainsaw defense, repeating the same old confusion, ignoring my responses, and a vague accusation of me being hypocritical, inaccurately portraying me as saying any and all fishing was scummy.

83 is more "i really don't get it" from painted. this kind of ignorasnce, again looks tough to feign. i will reiterate, painted is more likely scum if sken flips scum. as a stand alone case, painted reads more like VI. the logic fails are incredible and painted seems to enjoy trying to compare apples to oranges and then trying to convince us that they are all apples.

84 is painted showing a lack of understanding again. they seem convinced that the original sken vote by deas was poor, which again, has not been the case at all. also, painted talks about:

This seems like a strategy scum might use: make poorly reasoned attacks on someone randomly, and then start a wagon on whoever calls you on the attacks, arguing they were "defending" the first person.

i don't think anyone has attacked painted, have they? the focus has been on sken, with a strong "buddying" suggestion between sken and painted for the protracted defense. another apples to oranges type of moment. painted finished this post with the old "well what about the lurkers" type comment. common scum tactic. i don't like it when people try and call out inactivity early in a game. its kind of like "well, i know i'm suspicious, but what about all those people." it always looks like an attempt to get the heat off of yourself.

Response: Once again, a lot here. We have a vague unexplained comment on my alleged logic fails and allegedly false analogies, without pointing any out. I'll be happy to explain whatever logic or analogies are confusing people, and I do admit to my mistakes, but in general I think my reasoning's been pretty tight.

We have a disagreement over DV's original Sken vote. I've explained why I don't think this vote makes sense, but all in all it was partly meant to get things going, which it certainly did. And it is true that Sken has gotten a lot of the focus, though I have been attacked (by which I mean voted for and suspected) a few times.

Finally, the lurkers bit. I don't think I'm suspicious. I did think it was funny that early on, four of us were posting often, trying to figure out which of the four of us were scum, when we could well have all been town while the scum sat back and watched the fireworks. And yes, of course I wanted the "heat" off: I'm town, and I'd rather the town look at people who might be scum. As a townie I don't particularly want a wagon and don't want to be lynched.

Why this is scummy: This part isn't as bad as the rest, but DJ misportrays me as saying I'm the only one who has been attacked, and tries to make it seem like I think I'm suspicious, and like that there is something wrong with trying to a) get votes off me and b) look for scum where they might be hiding.

86: thank you monk. if sken flips town this is the most likely to be a scum vote. certainly doesn't look like a bus, so this gives me a good take on monk dependent on sken's flip. it does look like sken has been slipping under the radar and letting her white knight take the heat.

Why this is scummy: If this is intended as a reference to me, it's again a sly rhetorical way of making me look bad. Note also the contradiction between this, and the previous paragraph where the focus was on Sken. But here, Sken is slipping under the radar and I'm taking the heat, mixed-metaphorically speaking.

While this is possible, you forget to point out in your theory that she could have received another active role, on town's side, and wanting to stay in because of it? It seems you are only focusing on her possible scum role.

hm. don't like this. why would focus on outing a town role? its called "scumhunting". not "townhunting". but whatevz.

Response: Fennin has already addressed this. This has nothing to do with outing a town role; the point is that an active town role may have made her want to stay in just as much as a scum role would. This was also pointed out earlier as well. But this is another example of DJ mischaracterizing something that someone said to make them look bad.

Why this is scummy: Completely twisting Fennin's point around to make it look like he wants to out a town role.

I actually think painted replied to this a while back, but I didn't go back and check it at the time. What is interesting to me is that Deasveil has been referring to me by the correct gender as well (and knows me a hell of a lot better than painted, which I think is obvious from our posts), but DJ didn't (and hasn't) mentioned it at all. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.

yes. let's go back and focus on a minor detail included in the original post. guess what? you deas weren't acting like scumbuddies at the time. you and painted were practically holding hands. the "gender" connection was a small detail which bolstered a larger, more obvious connection based on gameplay. double standard occurs when static laws are applied to similar circumstances. the relationships between the three of you were different.

The logic here is actually sound: it technically isn't a double standard when it's applied to different relationships. This is what makes me think DJ isn't a village idiot: he's perfectly capable of understanding logic when he wants. The problem is of course that the "gender" thing was public and didn't bolster anything, as discussed earlier.

slandaar 155. following my train of thought. again. if you are scum, you are a mastermind.

haha. slandaar 163. this is getting creepy. get out of my head!

Dons town.

Pretty much all I have to say about that post.

This makes me think Slandaar is town: it's a little WIFOMy but I'm doubting two scum would stick that close in Day 1 like this. Since DJ's probably scum, Slandaar is probably town.

Anyway, that's my case for DJ being scum. If you have specific questions please feel free to ask: insulting rhetoric isn't really helping the town find scum. If I made a mistake, or you disagree, let me know.

[Skenvoy]

MONK IS HERE! MONK IS BROWSING THE FORUM! MONK, IF YOU DON'T POST, MY VOTE'S GOING TO YOU!

(response to Painted's post coming up)

[Skenvoy]

Scratch that, I just noticed he's requested replacement

[Skenvoy]

I'm liking Painted's recent post - he's focusing on scumhunting, rather than defending (actually, he's got a good mixture of both).

UNVOTE

for now. I want to go back and reread. Expect another post.

Also, just looked at the activity log - half the players have over 20 or 30 posts, the other half all have under 10. Internet Stranger hasn't commented on anything, at all.

[Noramp]

I've addressed it over and over again, by saying that I thought the way DV went after Sken seemed scummy (for reasons I've explained). Even if they are both scum, the way DV posted seemed scummy. So I wasn't defending Sken, I was saying that either way DV's attack was illogical and that I suspected DV.

Fair enough but that wasn't really my question. Slaandar accused you of defending Sken. You didnt even address the fact that he accused you of it. I want to know why you didn't bother addressing this accusation when it first arose and only when you received a lot more pressure did you start to answer the accusations.

[don_johnson]

Response: I certainly didn't ignore the rest of the argument, but I did address this point because it pretty strongly pointed to DJ being Mafia. As I already explained, use of the rhetoric and underhanded accusations about me being familiar with the "maiden" I'm "whiteknighting" is really scummy. Especially when a) Sken's gender tag was clearly visible and b) DJ still hasn't acknowledged point a and admitted that there was nothing suspicious about my use of "her."

a) you pretty much did ignore the rest of that early post, and b) i really don't see why this is such a sore spot for you. i was merely pointing out that you had a certain degree of famiiarity with a player who was under scrutiny. this degree of familiarity was heightened by the interaction you had with said player. i never stated this was a major point of contention, and have not since stated that it was anything more than a small piece of a larger puzzle. imo you are using this to ignore the argument of "painted defended skenvoy by attacking deas and stating thinhgs which skenvoy could have very clearly stated for herself in the early going." all gender tags are visible. it doesn't mean i pay attention to them. and saying "dj still hasn't acknolwedged" that fact is factually incorrect. it was explained here:

may be some people pay attention more to gender than i do, and not to be sexist, but i find males in the majority of my gamnes and so will often default to he/his/him until it is pointed out to me that i am talking with a woman.

moving on:

Why this is scummy: DJ is portraying me as only focusing on a minor detail, ignoring the rest of my argument. DJ is also acting as if my comments on this point were intended to argue against his case against me, rather than to point out why he's scummy.

you do seem to be focusing on a minor detail. i have responded to everything you have said. pbpa stands for point by point analysis. if it would help you understand me, i can do one to that earlier post. imo it seems unneccesary as you are the only player who doesn't get it. but whatevz. oh, and btw, "whatevz" is a clarifier. i use it to show that certain things are not a big deal. if it offends you i apologize.

Response: I don't know what PBPA means. Assuming it means go over the post again, I doubt it will change my opinion at this point. I'd rather you look back at my early original posts and try to understand them. Half of your post was saying you didn't understand various points. And you or others may disagree with some of the arguments in my response, but I certainly did a lot more than just summarize and agree. I've now decided you're much more likely to be scum than VI.

my next post will be a pbpa of that post. your earlier posts were you trying to justify why you thought deas' vote on sken was bad. i thought it was perfectly acceptable. nothing over the top awesome, but the logic was sound and the timeline worked. there was nothing scummy, imo, about deas original vote. it wasn't awesome, but it wasn't illogical. your defense of sken seemed entirely unnecessary and over the top at the time, so it drew attention to the two of you as a pair. is there a difference between attacking someones attacker(chainsaw defense) and attacking someone whose attack of another player you think is scummy? of course, but there is no way for that to be apparent. on the surface, both attacks will look the same. i have no way of knowing whether your attack was chainsaw unless one or both of you flip scum, but the way your defense of sken came about, its illogical nature, and sken's acceptance of that defense until it became a hot topic, all combine to make you both look terribad. which is why so many players are focused on you and sken.

Why this is scummy: Mischaracterizing my response as if it was in general agreeing with DJ, and completely ignoring/discounting the arguments I made in response to DJ's post rather than actually addressing them. Also, the 'whatevz' is pretty hostile and annoying, not that only scum do that, but at this point it just appears that DJ is trying to irritate, confuse, mischaracterize, and stir up trouble, rather than actually help the town find scum.

i have had my vote on skenvoy for almost the entire game. i have clearly explained my point of view. how have i "mischaracterized" your response? noone else has taken your side in this issue. doesn't that tell you something? seriously.

Response: Whew, there's a lot here. I've already addressed the confusion about the chainsaw defense: there's a big difference between attacking an attacker cause he seems like scum, and attacking an attacker as a way of defending someone else.

i agree. but there is no concrete way to tell the difference. by attacking someones attacker,you are defending them. plain and simple. hence, if skenvoy flips scum, then painted is likely scum because painted attacked skenvoy's attackers in the early game. please explain scumdj's motivation for this stance? am i bussing my scumbuddy to set up a mislynch for tomorrow? or am i scum trying to mislynch skenvoy? because in that instance what would be the scum motivation of tieing the two of you together in this fashion? think please.

To explain my point about reasons, this was a reference to an early post where I asked Slandaar to explain a post where he just quoted Sken and then voted. I thought it was suspicious not to provide an explanation and I asked him to do so.

we covered this. i understood slandaar's post. i didn't need an explanation because i saw what he saw. you either didn't, or you are pretending you didn't.

Granted fishing for a response can sometimes be a useful tactic, but in that particular instance I thought the way Slandaar did it was strange. I'm not sure what DJ means about me doing it myself: an example would be helpful.

yeah, i'd have to look back for this. i think the "fishing" conversation has been lost among the wall posts.

Why this is scummy: Mischaracterizing the chainsaw defense,

repeating the same old confusion, ignoring my responses

, and a vague accusation of me being hypocritical, inaccurately portraying me as saying any and all fishing was scummy.

please qualify the bolded. those are broad statements which carry no weight. list the "same old confusion" with numbers. i.e. please identify what i am repeating and why it is confusing. also list what you feel i have ignored. if you do so in outline form it is much easier to respond to. thanks.

Once again, a lot here. We have a vague unexplained comment on my alleged logic fails and allegedly false analogies, without pointing any out. I'll be happy to explain whatever logic or analogies are confusing people, and I do admit to my mistakes, but in general I think my reasoning's been pretty tight.

again: it doesn't send up any red flags when absolutely noone has agreed with your logic?

We have a disagreement over DV's original Sken vote. I've explained why I don't think this vote makes sense, but all in all it was partly meant to get things going, which it certainly did. And it is true that Sken has gotten a lot of the focus, though I have been attacked (by which I mean voted for and suspected) a few times.

dv's vote followed an acceptable timeline and thought process. noone ever said that vote was "good", just that it wasn't "illogical". it did get things going and it did illicit response.

Finally, the lurkers bit. I don't think I'm suspicious. I did think it was funny that early on, four of us were posting often, trying to figure out which of the four of us were scum, when we could well have all been town while the scum sat back and watched the fireworks. And yes, of course I wanted the "heat" off: I'm town, and I'd rather the town look at people who might be scum. As a townie I don't particularly want a wagon and don't want to be lynched.

i don't think you are in terrible danger of being lynched. what do you think of skenvoy?

Why this is scummy: This part isn't as bad as the rest, but DJ misportrays me as saying I'm the only one who has been attacked, and tries to make it seem like I think I'm suspicious, and like that there is something wrong with trying to a) get votes off me and b) look for scum where they might be hiding.

i disagree. you may be taking things too personally. there is nothing wrong with a) and b). timing has a lot to do with it. part of b) is doing something about it. all the players who have pointed out "lurkers" in this game have completely failed to do anything about it. i think someone called out metabot with a vote, but otherwise, other players have been saying "what about the lurkers?" and not moving there votes or asking any pertinent questions. skenvoy did this.

86: thank you monk. if sken flips town this is the most likely to be a scum vote. certainly doesn't look like a bus, so this gives me a good take on monk dependent on sken's flip. it does look like sken has been slipping under the radar and letting her white knight take the heat.

Why this is scummy: If this is intended as a reference to me, it's again a sly rhetorical way of making me look bad. Note also the contradiction between this, and the previous paragraph where the focus was on Sken. But here, Sken is slipping under the radar and I'm taking the heat, mixed-metaphorically speaking.

wha? this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with you. this supports the idea that you may be taking things i write too personally. this post actually implies you may be town. the term white knight is being used as an identifier. not an insult. this post has to do with monk and his vote and his alignment in relation to skenvoy's flip.

While this is possible, you forget to point out in your theory that she could have received another active role, on town's side, and wanting to stay in because of it? It seems you are only focusing on her possible scum role.

hm. don't like this. why would focus on outing a town role? its called "scumhunting". not "townhunting". but whatevz.

Response: Fennin has already addressed this. This has nothing to do with outing a town role; the point is that an active town role may have made her want to stay in just as much as a scum role would. This was also pointed out earlier as well. But this is another example of DJ mischaracterizing something that someone said to make them look bad.

meh. i was looking for clarification. fennin's post was a) completely irrelevant, and b) not very clear imo. irrelevant because the argument is not and never has been about deas' original vote or his reasoning. we(except you) all agreed the reasoning was weak, but logical and not scummy. why fennin addressed this at all is beyond me. but its not something worth arguing over. i was looking for clarification. its done.

really don't want to load up this pbpa, but i guess i have to. incoming...

[don_johnson]

I can't decide if Don Johnson's post was more scummy or VI. What do you guys think? A lot of spreading confusion and misinformation there:

not posting a reason until you are asked is a very townie thing to do. it helps you guage reactions. thats kinda mafiascum 101 imo.

I have to disagree with this as a matter of strategy. It smells scummy to me, though I don't really think that by itself is a major tell. I'm not familiar with people doing that.

this is merely a disagreement of playstyle and strategy. i've been on site for a while. i see this all the time. i don't think you ever followed up in regards to this. if you did, please remind me. but if you hadn't followed up, then it couldn't have been all that much of a scumtell for you. your wording here seems to downplay it as it is.

i guess to me, slan's post was self explanatory. so painted's "wtf was that?" post reads like chainsaw defense.

So to me, it wasn't self-explanatory, though I see your point. If you're used to that kind of play then it's not that remarkable.

here we agree to disagree. or are you saying something else? it looks to me like you are accepting my interpretation based on the idea that we didn't interpret the post in question the same.

I can't tell if you're genuinely not understanding the idea of the chainsaw defense, or if you're deliberately muddying the waters. Chainsaw defense is when you argue that someone is innocent by attacking their attacker. It's different from noticing that an attacker is scummy. I have no idea if Sken is innocent or scum, one way or the other: to me, what's far more interesting and important is the bullshit arguments for Sken's guilt which make DV look scummy.

covered this. both attacks look the same on the surface. i.e. player a is attacked by player b. player c then attacks player b. both are possibilities. what matters is timing and player response. you were the only player who voiced your belief that deas vote was illogical. your argument sucked(no offense). when your argument sucks it makes the whole thing look more like a chainsaw defense than you attacking someone for a poor attack of their own. again, you are not saying what i am doing is scummy here. and you earlier agreed that my thought process was not "unremarkable" if i was used to that sort of thing. you're not being definitive here. you are saying on the one hand that my response makes some sense, and then saying you don't think i understand, but may be deliberately muddying the waters. has this trend continued? are you still confused as to how i have interpreted this event? is my definition of chainsaw defense no longer acceptable?

"fishing" is a large part of scumhunting. and is useful. the "useless post" actually generated reactions, discussions, and so "useless" does not really apply.

This is actually a valid point. It didn't turn out to be useless. By itself, not giving reasons is no big deal, but in combination with the other things DV looked scummy.

what "other things"? please list them, or quote me the posts where you earlier listed these "other things".

sken signed up. wanted out. pms were distributed. sken wanted in. is there something wrong with the timeline here? cause it makes perfect sense to me. dumb reason for a vote, but a reason nonetheless. deas is not the one making a big deal out of it.

That was my entire point. Dumb reason for a vote, and it's all we had to go on at the time, so I voted DV. It may have just been DV not understanding the situation with Sken. But looking at what's happened since then, I'm suspecting DV.

so why not let skenvoy defend herself? also, is this the same argument you made earlier? if i recall correctly, you were trying to show that deas' vote was "illogical". illogical and dumb are two completely different things. please clarify which you felt deas' vote was.

also, paint seems to be referring to sken as "she". maybe i missed the gender tag

Seriously? It's under Sken's avatar, just like all the other gender tags. I don't think you missed it, I think you're trying to stir up trouble. This is pretty shady right there.

and i think you were chainsaw defending your scumbuddy. see, we all have opinions. i explained the gender thing. so far, nothing in this post has shown dj as "scummy" as far as i can tell. you seem to be fleshing out disagreements.

You seem to be having trouble following post 45. Basically, DV seemed to think that there was something wrong with giving reasons for why I thought someone was scum based on an early suspicion. My entire point was, as you say:

this is not an equation imo. painted provided bullshit reasons. deas provided good ones. this an "apples to oranges" type of lgic here.

except that my reasons were good and DV's were bullshit.

bullshit or dumb? i think this is where our main disagreement dwells. dv's vote and reasoning followed an organic and logical thought process. it was dumb, but it

was

organic and logical. what are you arguing? "dumb" or "bullshit(which i am interpreting to mean illogical)"?

I said DV's reasons were bullshit, DV said "you gave reasons too!" and I explained that the problem was not with giving reasons, but that his reasons were bullshit.

i didn't see any backpedaling.

The backpedaling is a big part of why I suspect DV. His first vote was pretty clear that he thought Sken was guilty, but later he tried to pass it of as just part of the random voting phase.

*facepalm* his first vote was a stab in the dark. i don't believe he ever presented it as anything more. he used an organic and logical thought process to make a reasoned vote which brought us out of rvs. you jumped on it, came to skenvoy's defense. skenvoy slipped under the radar, ignored you and accepted your defense until the pressure from it reached a breaking point and was bringing suspicion on you both. then skenvoy turned on you. you both called out lurkers to get suspicion off of you, and neither of you did anything about it. why is this so difficult for you? honestly, the only reason that i can think that this would be such a big issue for you is if you were scum with skenvoy. what do you think of skenvoy? would you be willing to lynch them today?